背景:这项研究有两个目的:比较Microseal,连续波,和Thermafil技术,并比较有和没有牙髓封闭剂的相同技术。
方法:将90颗下颌前磨牙分为6组,用Microseal封闭(分析,Glendora,CA)和密封剂(Mseal),不带密封剂的微密封件(Mnoseal),系统B(EIE分析技术,橙色,CA)和密封剂(SBseal),系统B不带密封器(SBnoseal),Thermafil(Dentsply,塔尔萨牙科,塔尔萨,OK)和密封剂(Tseal),和(Tnoseal)Thermafil无密封剂(Tnoseal)。在距顶点1和3mm处切割牙齿。测量每个管段的总面积,这些面积被转换为古塔胶填充面积的百分比,密封剂填充区域,和空白区域。所得数据采用t检验(P≤0.01)进行统计学阐述。
结果:在1毫米处,SBseal产生的VA高于Mseal和Tseal。在3毫米处,Tseal产生的VA低于Mseal和SBseal,而Mseal产生的VA低于SBseal(P>.01)。在1毫米处,Tnoseal产生的VA明显高于Mnoseal和SBnoseal(P=.001)。在3毫米处,Tnoseal产生的VA高于Mnoseal和SBnoseal(P=0.01)。在1mm(P=.001)和3mm(P=.001)时,Tnoseal的VA均明显高于Tseal。
结论:牙髓间隙填充传统上由密封剂和牙胶提供。在这项研究的条件下,在Microseal和SystemB技术中,单独的古塔胶在3mm和1mm处显示出更好的填充效果。考虑到我们研究的局限性,我们可以肯定,使用密封剂的牙髓技术可以抵消热塑的古塔胶的进展。
BACKGROUND: This study had 2 purposes: to compare the Microseal, continuous wave, and Thermafil techniques and to compare the same techniques with and without endodontic sealer.
METHODS: Ninety extracted mandibular premolars were allocated into 6 groups obturated with Microseal (Analytic, Glendora, CA) and sealer (Mseal), Microseal without sealer (Mnoseal), System B (EIE Analytic Technology, Orange, CA) and sealer (SBseal), System B without sealer (SBnoseal), Thermafil (Dentsply, Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) and sealer (Tseal), and (Tnoseal) Thermafil without sealer (Tnoseal). The teeth were sectioned at 1 and 3 mm from the apex. The total area of each canal segment was measured, and the areas were converted to the percentage of gutta-percha-filled areas, sealer-filled areas, and void areas. Data obtained were statistically elaborated using the t test (P ≤ .01).
RESULTS: At 1 mm, SBseal produced a higher VA than Mseal and Tseal. At 3 mm, Tseal produced a lower VA than Mseal and SBseal, whereas Mseal produced a lower VA than SBseal (P > .01). At 1 mm, Tnoseal produced a significantly higher VA than Mnoseal and SBnoseal (P = .001). At 3 mm, Tnoseal produced a higher VA than Mnoseal and SBnoseal (P = .01). Tnoseal produced a significantly higher VA than Tseal both at 1 mm (P = .001) and 3 mm (P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Endodontic space filling is traditionally provided by sealer and gutta-percha. In this study\'s conditions, gutta-percha alone showed better filling at both 3 mm and 1 mm in the Microseal and System B techniques. Considering the limits of our study, we can affirm that endodontic techniques using sealer could counteract thermoplasticized gutta-percha progression.